<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NYT Blogger Hits Ethanol Again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://corncommentary.com/2007/09/25/nyt-blogger-hits-ethanol-again/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://corncommentary.com/2007/09/25/nyt-blogger-hits-ethanol-again/</link>
	<description>The blog about U.S. corn, corn products, and the family farmers behind it all.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:22:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Garrett</title>
		<link>http://corncommentary.com/2007/09/25/nyt-blogger-hits-ethanol-again/comment-page-1/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Garrett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:57:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://corncommentary.com/2007/09/25/nyt-blogger-hits-ethanol-again/#comment-138</guid>
		<description>Thank you Cindy for your impassioned defense of the corn industry. I especially enjoy the elegance with which you put people&#039;s words through the spin cycle. I would like to point that the word I used for cellulosic ethanol research was &quot;underfunded&quot;; I did not say &quot;not funding any research into cellulosic ethanol&quot;. Also, I did not say &quot;ethanol&quot; was only good for a 0-3 percent reduction in greenhouse gases; I cited the report&#039;s specific finding about &quot;corn ethanol&quot; only. I would enjoy reading the full Argonne National Laboratory report for the figures you cite on corn ethanol GHG reduction. Could you please provide a link to it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Cindy for your impassioned defense of the corn industry. I especially enjoy the elegance with which you put people&#8217;s words through the spin cycle. I would like to point that the word I used for cellulosic ethanol research was &#8220;underfunded&#8221;; I did not say &#8220;not funding any research into cellulosic ethanol&#8221;. Also, I did not say &#8220;ethanol&#8221; was only good for a 0-3 percent reduction in greenhouse gases; I cited the report&#8217;s specific finding about &#8220;corn ethanol&#8221; only. I would enjoy reading the full Argonne National Laboratory report for the figures you cite on corn ethanol GHG reduction. Could you please provide a link to it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

